9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bill of Entry. Since the department had valid reasons for rejection of declared assessable value as per section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 as same were found much lower than the contemporary prices of similar / identical goods, the importer was confronted with these facts and the importer has agreed for enhancement of the import price of their import consignment from ₹ 118/- to ₹ 220/- per kg. (which was average price of range of import price varying between ₹ 180 to ₹ 240/- per kg at the relevant time). Since the importer appellant at the time of import has agreed themselves for enhancement of the value of their consignment on the basis of contemporaneous import price, we hold that the price for enhancement o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly explain as to why the value of imported consignment should not be enhanced to the import value of the contemporaneous import of the similar / identical goods. The importer vide its letter dated 23.1.2017 waived the right to have show cause notice. They have also declared to waive personal hearing in the matter. The importer appellant have also agreed for enhancement of the import value of their consignment to average value of contemporary imports and thus the goods were assessed at the rate of ₹ 220/- per kg for levy of customs duty. The Additional Commissioner, Customs vide its order-in-original dated 24.1.17 has confirmed the additional amount of customs duty amounting to ₹ 1,79,565/- the a penalty of ₹ 40,000/- unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue transaction value, therefore there is no ground for the department to reject the same and determine the value as per Customs Valuation Rules and therefore, the adoption of Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules for enhancing the declared value, is legally not sustainable. Learned advocate has also cited various judgements in this regard. Learned advocate has also contended that even in case when contemporaneous prices are to be taken for enhancement of the declared value of the imported consignment, the lower side of the import cited price range should have been adopted by the department for the purpose of revaluation of there imported consignment. 4. We have also heard learned DR who has primarily rebutted the arguments on the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment has rightly applied Customs Valuation Rule 05 for determination of valuation of the cooling pads as they have had substantial evidence which indicated that the consignment has been mis-declared with regard to its value and the importer has also agreed for enhancement of declared import price. However, we feel that the lower side of the range of contemporaneous import price i.e. between ₹ 180/- per kg to ₹ 240/- per kg , ₹ 180/- should have been taken by the department for enhancement of import value of the present import item namely, cooling pads. In this regard., it is relevant to take shelter of decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Paul Industries ( India) Ltd. vs. Union of India [2004 (171) ELT 299 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised being a pure question of law, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in refusing to go into the merits of the original order passed by the Settlement Commission. 6. In view of the above, we are of the view that since the importer appellant at the time of import has agreed themselves for enhancement of the value of their consignment on the basis of contemporaneous import price, we hold that the price for enhancement ought to have been taken ₹ 180/- per kg. which was lowest range of contemporary price and not the average price of ₹ 220/- per kg. 7. In view of the above, we remand back the matter to the original adjudicating authority for redetermination of the Customs duty taking the value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
